Let the smackheads take what they want, but they should lose entitlement to free healthcare when it goes wrong.

Let them reap what they sow..

Also every company like mine should introduce random drug tests, if you fail you're fired....

A scientist without consent can with a sound weapon give cramp like feelings in only,always the left side of the brain or feeling of being hit by a brick.All to give you a false laugh.No belly laugh it's false.Also,you can hear things by manufactured szchophrenia.So why no prosecution against the scientist.Secret experiments involving the NHS cooperating the railways.Is there a D-notice?

if they want to take it let the rubbish take it if they kill there selves at leat it will cut the benefits bill so its not all that bad after all

8. surfingsharka"Our freedom loving Liberals just love to ban stuffBan this ban that ban the other"

The legislation was introduced by the Conservatives."

And the liberals are the ones who want to legalise Marijuana.

If people need gas to laugh something is very wrong, maybe their smart phones are doing them damage?

1. If you legalize then it is the taxpayer who will be paying for their fix through NHS funding.2. If the NHS charge for it then there will be those who will still go out and mug & burgle to get the money.3. There are crimes which are carried out due to drugs that are nothing to do with buying or selling but due to perpretators being out their heads on drugs. We're going to give it to them!

Come on, get real, if you have kids and they turn out to be smack heads, Im sure you would be wishing it was illegal. If your taking this garbage and you are parents, what a great example your setting.

if an idiot wants to pay to escape the real world let them, I just don't want to be paying my taxes so they can lay in bed all day out on their minds on some drugs.

They drink whatever is cheap and makes them look sophisticated like a WAG innit?

I can't actually bear to go into town these days for all the vacuous people with their narcissistic world view that everyone needs to know their every action or thought.

I would rather remove my own penis with a steak mallet than talk to any of them.

I see the phenomenon all over the place. Scruffy girls with tattoos and piercings all over their body suddenly feeling the need to look elegant. When you witness it, it just visually clashes. Add into the mix that there are 5 empty bottles on the table and Primark shopping bags strewn at their feet - as a look, doesn't quite work.

Tattoos, piercings or pseudo jet-set - whatever floats your boat

I can almost guarantee you that 99% of the women you refer to in this 'newspeice' will not know the difference between Champagne, Prosecco or indeed Cava. Nor would they know the difference between good or bad wine.

They are doing what seems to be 'hip' at the time.

No news, move on.

People are sheep. Sambuca was all over the place a couple of years ago. Social media are turned everybody into clones.. It is funny to see people thinking they are so classy drinking prosecco.. It is just the next thing everyone is copying.Next up.. Guiness in wine glasses...?

Same stuff different labels and they call it alcohol. Plain white cider is still cheaper and if you ignore the plastic bottle by hiding behind the sofa you will also get tipsy to the same or a greater extent than champagne. And the money saved can be spent on a excellent DVD movie from a hospice charity shop etc, and still a fiver left over out of a tenner.

Moi je préfère du champagne

OP (author?) should be asking these women if they are aware of the link between alcohol and breast cancer. Only yesterday I read an article about the drinks industry misleading the public by downplaying and misrepresenting the link between alcohol and cancer – especially breast cancer – in a bid to protect its profits.

It's the second coming of babysham, it's served in a sophisticated flute only it's not made of pears!!

Lambrusco, Lambrini, Cava and now Prosecco. They will never be any classier than the lifestyle they support.

If they are innocent then they have nothing to worry about .This country is becoming a nation of permanently offended snowflakes.No doubt the Guardian is bleating on about this today as well.The same snowflakes would be the 1st to complain when they are mugged and the perpetrators arent found by the Police...

To all those making negative points on here If you'd been a victim of crime . Had your home robbed , your car , your wallet or mobile in the street with a crazy person with a knife , or someone stabbed you , thrown acid in your face You'd be singing from a different hymn sheet now for justice Sit back and think before hitting post comment

the only people to worry are those with something to hide do I care my photo is out there ? NO I shop in asda and Tesco and play online games NOTHING TO HIDE

Posted by Alanzo yep that will solve everything read an fiction novel grow up of course you wil be against it right up until your shouting out why the police cant catch someone that done you and yours harm

Nothing wrong with facial recognition technology - anything that helps fight crime is a plus and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Its use does need to be controlled ethically, though. You cannot label someone a troublemaker or criminal just because they turn up to a protest rally for example.

If you are worried about having your face recognised then simply wear a Burqa.

And if anyone is authority questions you simple accuse them of being racist. Problem solved.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted. Doesn't mean he's "innocent". Most of the recent perpetrators of terrorism in the UK have been "known to the security services" but not convicted of anything. Might have been useful if we'd known what they were up to......

Won't this Technology be banned for being politicaly incorrect?

I mean it can spot if your Gay , White ,Black.Female

But it won't have clue what trans fluid looks like.

But it picks your gender for you ?

I see no problem with having everybody´s photo and DNA profile in a database including all entering the country. The problem is that photos and DNA profiles on the police database are those of people who the police have preconceived as guilty however falsely. A photo of somebody on their database will (subconsciously?) mean they will think there is something dodgy about that individual.

Out of all the bullshit fallacies, the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' argument grinds my gears the most. Everyone has something to hide, and i bet these strawberry floats would be singing a different tune if any of their weird secret gooseberry fool became illegal.

This is clearly building up to tracking and monitoring movements in public spaces automatically. Like mass surveillance of the digital space, mass surveillance via facial recognition will only manage to track people with no serious interest in subverting it. Serious criminals who want to move undetected will learn to wear glasses or draw a small black line on one of their cheeks or one of the trillion other things that can defeat facial recognition. I mean, Christ, even common robbers have been wearing hats or balaclavas to make them hard to recognise since forever.

Karl wrote:This is clearly building up to tracking and monitoring movements in public spaces automatically. Like mass surveillance of the digital space, mass surveillance via facial recognition will only manage to track people with no serious interest in subverting it. Serious criminals who want to move undetected will learn to wear glasses or draw a small black line on one of their cheeks or one of the trillion other things that can defeat facial recognition. I mean, Christ, even common robbers have been wearing hats or balaclavas to make them hard to recognise since forever.

If you are worried about having your face recognised then simply wear a Burqa.

And if anyone is authority questions you simple accuse them of being racist. Problem solved.

Karl wrote:This is clearly building up to tracking and monitoring movements in public spaces automatically. Like mass surveillance of the digital space, mass surveillance via facial recognition will only manage to track people with no serious interest in subverting it. Serious criminals who want to move undetected will learn to wear glasses or draw a small black line on one of their cheeks or one of the trillion other things that can defeat facial recognition. I mean, Christ, even common robbers have been wearing hats or balaclavas to make them hard to recognise since forever.

If you are worried about having your face recognised then simply wear a Burqa.

And if anyone is authority questions you simple accuse them of being racist. Problem solved.

the only people to worry are those with something to hide do I care my photo is out there ? NO I shop in asda and Tesco and play online games NOTHING TO HIDE

Totally agree on this. There should be an equal number of toilets for men and women. Oh and TG types too. Oh and for men who aren't sure about their sexuality, better split that quota between women who aren't sure either .... and what about a-sexuals, best not leave them out.

So in summary we need six different categories of toilet. Common sense prevails.

Did I miss anyone/thing?

Urinals for men are just outdated and horrible anyway.

I get jealous when I hear women have 7 toilots next door and the toilots I'm in has 1 toilot and a rusty dirty Urinal.

As man I would prefer we had 7 toilots no urinals and same luxury women get in most toilots.

It's men who are discriminated at most time and forced stand next 4 other men like cattle.

= rights for men please

Interesting comment from Cathelijne Hornstra "with my buttocks protruding under the edge while half-drunk ". Drink is probably the biggest factor in this whole story. The original offence was committed "after a night out, drinking, in Amsterdam". Suggestion:- don't get so drunk that you forget to use the toilet before leaving the bar.

Not at all sexist, urinating in the street is an offence under Dutch (and UK) law. What if there were no urinals provided for either sex? it would still be illegal.

Some people need to 'man' up and just accept when they are wrong rather than continually blaming some 'ism', but then I suppose that's the way modern blame culture society works.

But then I would say that wouldn't I, being a man

I'm guessing part of the issue is that male toilet facilities are usually basic as hell compared to womens, so it wouldn't be long before they were complaining about the size and quality.

Women can ONLY piddle on a toilet with the SEAT LEFT DOWN...this is a fact and one every human being should be aware of.

Why debate urinals and shewee's when there is no seat to leave down to enable the peeing to commence....?

To me, there are 2 aspects to this:

1. They should have more toilets for women2. The law is pretty clear that you don't pee in the street, and she broke it

Shouldn't she have been campaigning for more toilets before getting caught short?

Instead, she only kicks up a fuss about it once she finds it inconvenient.

Wow, a woman in Amsterdam peeing in the streets, I'm surprised! Usually this takes place as a fetish in one of the many rooms occupied by members of the LGBT community!